Prof. Maule writes: > For the police officer to KNOW that the information is false, the police > officer needs to KNOW that there is no meth in the basement. If the > police officer had looked into the basement, saw no meth, and then > alleged there was meth, that's a lie. If the police officer sees > evidence of meth from things seen outside the house, and by peering into > the windows, then it is not a lie to allege that there is information > suggesting the existence of meth. > > And, of course, if for months on end the world debates whether the > warrant should be issued, it leaves plenty of time to clear the basement > of meth.
Comment: I stated that "A police officer swears out an affidavit alleging certain facts KNOWN by him to be FALSE from his intelligence sources." (emphases provided). You are changing the facts of the hypothesis. The police officer could knowingly swear to false statements. For example, the informant said that there was no meth, but the police officer swears that his reliable informant said that there was. Francisco Forrest Martin
